In 2008, a group of Ron Paul supporters founded RonPaul.com, a Ron Paul fan-site that became one of the leading sources for information about and support for the perennial Libertarian presidential candidate. The creators of the site "put our lives on hold and invested 5 years of hard work into Ron Paul, RonPaul.com and Ron Paul 2012." His presidential campaign fell short, but the enthusiasm lived on as supporters continued to rally around this free enterprise Messiah.

Yesterday morning, Ron Paul repaid their support by filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of Paul's much-reviled United Nations, seeking the expropriation of both RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from his supporters without any compensation.

Comment viewing options

If the current owners of the RonPaul.com domain would offer full disclosure on issues like:

Has Ron Paul or his representatives made any offers to them. I heard RP offered $50,000 for the domain name and they turned it down.

Does Ron Paul want the actual website and member list or just the domain name? I would think that most if not all the people on their list are duplicates of those on lists RP already has. The content on the site seems to be nothing but merchandise for sale with his name and image and cut n’ paste news articles, so I doubt he wants the actual website.

What is the $250,000 price they’re asking for based on? How much did they pay for the domain name when they bought it; How much profit have they made per year since the purchase of the domain; Where does the profit come from (advertising revenue? sales on the Ron Paul paraphernalia they sell? Selling their member list to other parties?); have any other parties attempted to purchase the domain and if so, what prices did they offer?

Apparently, Ron Paul himself held the domain name for many years, but his reps forgot to renew ownership. I understand that according to rules related to domain names, anyone can buy any available domain name — “snooze, you lose.” However, the current owners claim to be Ron Paul grassroots supporters who did him a favor by buying the domain (keeping it out of the hands of those who’d use it to smear or discredit him).

Obviously, Ron Paul doesn’t approve of them holding the RonPaul.com domain as he wants to use it himself. Now, they’re actually using it to smear and discredit him (what they were supposed to be protecting him from) for merely utilizing the only dispute resolution available to him which they agreed to via contract when they bought the domain. This leaves them in a problematic situation…they’re passing themselves off as Ron Paul supporters while smearing him and withholding a domain for what appears to be an inflated price that is actually his name. Sure, they have a right to do it, but they can’t have it both ways. They’ll probably lose a large percentage of members and traffic, not to mention their supposed reputation as grassroots supporters if they keep it up. I doubt they’ll get the $250,000 they want, so refusing the $50,000 they were offered looks like cutting off their nose to spite their face to me.

His supporters purchased it in May 2008 and generously drove traffic to his "official sites." They promoted money bombs, legislation, speeches, books, campaigns, etc. all without compensation. And this is how he thanks them? By lying in the Claim and calling the UN/WIPO to confiscate their property.

I don't know that RP wouldn't be willing to pay them for the domain, though it seems apparent that he doesn't want to pay $250,000. I don't see how RP is discrediting himself or harming the current domain name owners by not giving them a quarter of a million dollars. RP has always promoted contract law as libertarian and the current domain owners are now smearing him as "unlibertarian" for utilizing the dispute arbitration option in the contract they agreed to when they obtained the domain name. Don't you think that's just a little bit hypocritical and nasty of them?

As I understand it, the registrant of RonPaul.com is not "Ron Paul" nor do they have any ownership of "Ron Paul" as a trademark or brand. They do not have Ron Paul's permission to profit off his name nor do they compensate him via licensing for any "Ron Paul" items that they have sold using his name. Surely all those items would have gone unsold if it was not for them putting Ron Paul's name on them and using RonPaul.com which probably confuses consumers about whose site that is. It didn't always say "fan site" up at the top.

They claim to be Ron Paul supporters, but they apparently offered the domain to him for $800,000 then dropped it down to $250,000. If they truly were Ron Paul supporters they would have given the domain name to Ron Paul for use in the 2008 & 2012 campaigns.

Essentially, they are trying to sell his own name to him online. There is no doubt they are trying to do that as RonPaul.com is a site about Ron Paul.

The law in the US changed in 1999. No longer can people try to sell domain names to the owner of the trademark or even personal names. This is usually considered to be a bad faith use of the domain.

They could have kept running it as a Ron Paul fan site & probably would have been fine. But to try to sell it to Ron Paul is where they went wrong.

I think it is kinda douchey on both of their parts. RP IS trying to strongarm the domain, but the dude who owns it can't sit there and sell RP stuff and think nothing is going to happen. But if its just a name he liked, and he used it for any other reason, well RP would be shit out of luck and I wouldn't "give" it to some famous guy either. But, I LOVE RP. ;) So I might for him.

They are no doubt profiting off of Ron Paul's personal brand, trademark & good name.

I wonder, did they get Ron Paul's permission to sell gear with his name on it? Are they paying Ron Paul licensing fees just the way any other trademark holder is paid when their name/image is used on products? Probably not.

They can no longer claim that RonPaul.com is not about Ron Paul, because they have used it as such for 5 years now. That inextricably ties RonPaul.com to Ron Paul. They cannot reasonable argue that they have any legitimate use for owning RonPaul.com beyond running it as a fan site... and they lost that argument when they tried to sell it to Ron Paul.

...Ron Paul doesn't own that URL. And it's not illegal to buy the URL of someone else's name. And just because you're famous doesn't mean you deserve something over someone who is less famous.

Is the story really that Ron Paul is essentially trying to legally control RonPaul.com? If so, that doesn't feel like a Ron Paul thing to do. Has he explained his side of the story on this? I'd definitely be interested to hear it.

To address some of the misinformation that has appeared online, the matter between Dr. Paul and the domain name holders of RonPaul.com involves a private arbitration proceeding, not a UN proceeding.

This action is a private international arbitration action filed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), which was developed and implemented by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"). ICANN is a non-profit, private organization organized under California law. ICANN has agreements with registrars that issue and maintain domain names to coordinate the stable functioning of the Internet's system of domain names and addresses. One of the main functions of ICANN is to provide a system of dispute resolution to protect the intellectual property rights an individual or business may have in a domain name. The registrars that issue domain names agree to abide by the bylaws of ICANN and the UDRP and follow this procedure.

Under the UDRP, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name. Disputes alleged to arise from abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is serving here merely as an approved dispute resolution service provider in this private arbitration. The use of WIPO was necessitated because the current domain name owners used an Australian registrar to acquire the domain name. The current RonPaul.com domain name holders subjected themselves to this proceeding in this forum when they registered RonPaul.com with an Australian registrar

New innovators create vast new markets where none existed previously; Individual genius enabled by the truly free market the Internet represents routes around obsolete and ineffective government attempts at control; The arrogant attempts of governments to centralize, intervene, subsidize, micromanage and regulate innovation is scoffed at and ignored.

The revolution is occurring around the world.

It is occurring in the private sector, not the public sector.

It is occurring despite wrongheaded attempts by governments to micromanage markets through disastrous industrial policy.

And it is driven by the Internet, the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets.

The true technology revolutionaries have little need for big government and never have. Microsoft ignored the government for years and changed the world by leading the PC revolution.

Today, companies like Apple -- which has created several completely new markets out of whole cloth (iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iPod) -- are changing the world again, successfully adopting visionary new revenue models for movies, songs and games, and launching an “app economy” responsible for creating almost half a million jobs in the United States since the iPhone was introduced…

All in less than 5 years, and all without government permission, partnerships, subsidies, or regulations!

Technology revolutionaries succeeded not because of some collectivist vision that seeks to regulate “fairness”, “neutrality”, “privacy” or “competition” through coercive state actions, or that views the Internet and technology as a vast commons that must be freely available to all, but rather because of the same belief as America’s Founders who understood that private property is the foundation of prosperity and freedom itself.

Technology revolutionaries succeed because of the decentralized nature of the Internet, which defies government control.

As a consequence, decentralization has unlocked individual self-empowerment, entrepreneurialism, creativity, innovation and the creation of new markets in ways never before imagined in human history.

But, ironically, just as decentralization has unleashed the potential for free markets and individual freedom on a global scale, collectivist special interests and governments worldwide are now tirelessly pushing for more centralized control of the Internet and technology.

Here at home they are aided and abetted both by an Administration that wholeheartedly believes in the wisdom of government to manage markets and some in the technology industry that cynically use the cudgel of government control and regulation to hamstring competitors – the Apple’s and Microsoft’s of tomorrow.

Internet collectivism takes many forms, all of them pernicious.

Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy and intellectual property. According to them;

Successful companies in brand new frontier industries that didn’t even exist as recently as five years ago should be penalized and intimidated with antitrust actions in the name of “fairness” and “competition.”
Privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure must be subject to collective rule via public ownership and government regulations that require “sharing” with other competitors.
Internet infrastructure must be treated as a commons subject to centralized government control through a variety of foolish “public interest” and “fairness” regulations.
Wireless, the lifeblood of the mobile Internet revolution, must be micromanaged as a government-controlled commons, with limited exclusive property rights.
Private property rights on the Internet should exist in limited fashion or not at all, and what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded.
Private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of “protecting consumers”, at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased.

Internet collectivists are clever.

They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control.

“Openness” means government control of privately owned infrastructure.

“Net neutrality” means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be "neutral". “Internet freedom” means the destruction of property rights.

“Competition” means managed competition, with the government acting as judge and jury on what constitutes competition and what does not.

Our “right to privacy” only applies to the data collection activities of the private sector, rarely to government.

The eminent economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that when government seeks to solve one problem, it creates two more.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of Internet collectivists and the centralized control of the Internet they seek.

The body of incremental communications law and regulation that has emerged since the days of Alexander Graham Bell are entirely unsuited to the dynamic and ever-changing Internet for one simple reason: Technology is evolving faster than government’s ability to regulate it.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." But in the Internet era, true Internet freedom can be lost in far less than one generation.

Around the world, the real threat to Internet freedom comes not from bad people or inefficient markets -- we can and will always route around them -- but from governments' foolish attempts to manage and control innovation.

And it is not just the tyrannies we must fear. The road away from freedom is paved with good intentions.

Today, the road to tyranny is being paved by a collectivist-Industrial complex -- a dangerous brew of wealthy, international NGO's, progressive do-gooders, corporate cronies and sympathetic political elites.

Their goals are clear: The collectivist-industrial complex seeks to undermine free markets and property rights, replacing them with "benevolent" government control and a vision of "free" that quickly evolves from "free speech" to "free stuff."

We know where this path leads. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

A benevolent monopoly for "the public interest" is nothing more than a means for the old guard to reassert their power. The role of the government on the Internet is to protect us from force and fraud, not to decide our interests.

But while the Internet has produced a revolution, it has not, in fact, "changed everything". We do not need to reinvent our principles for the web; we only need apply our core principles to it. When faced with Internet regulation, we should ask these key questions:

Is this a core function of the federal government?
Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?
Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?
Does it protect property rights?
Does it protect individual rights?
If the federal government does not do this, will others?
Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends?
Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?

Yes, there will always be problems and challenges that exist in the online universe. These challenges are sometimes significant and important and other times not. Government, however, will never solve them. Markets will.

As a matter of principle, we oppose any attempt by Government to tax, regulate, monitor or control the Internet, and we oppose the Internet collectivists who collaborate with the government against Internet freedom.

Ron Paul doesn't have anything against either, as far as I know. He actually had a picture of a well-known anarchist--Murray Rothbard-- hanging on the wall of his D.C. office and promotes his ideas all the time. He also apparently subscribes to some "conspiracy theories" himself. In what way would you have Ron Paul "straighten up" the DP??? I don't think you understand Ron Paul half as well as you think you do.

What if you were famouse and someone else owned a site with your name on it and was making money from that using your name your image and your words? Would that be OK? It was your hard work that made your name famous. No one should profit from that but you. No one would go to that domain if it was not for his efforts. Your name, your fame and your image belong to you. You own yourself. No one should be able to profit from it but you. Not because they registerd it first or are a government with lots of guns and troops. Ron Paul may not agree with the U.N. but they are the ones in charge of this now so Ron has to accept reality. He would probably prefere a private company was in charge of deciding and arbetrating these kind of matters or certainly a judge in the US. Should have that power but that's not the case.

Fame should NOT be the basis for granting a privilege. One reaps from their ongoing work. ... Notice the present tense. If one doesn't work, one doesn't reap. Notice the PRESENT tense. One should NOT be allowed to reap from PAST production indefinitely at the taxpayer's expense (copyrights, trademarks, patents) through some "granted" privilege. If someone else works to profit from another person's fame, then so shall he reap (reward). Notice the present tense. In this case, someone else crossed the finish line first by working to acquire a domain using Ron's name. Ron can either haggle with the seller over a price, expose the seller's tactics in the media to encourage a reduction in price, acquire an available domain, or abandon the InterNet (best idea). ;)

I am afraid that the same sycophants that are all about Ron Paul hosing over the folks at RonPaul.com --- these are some of the same folks that have argued that patents, trademarks and copyrights have no use in Free Markets.

I think that Ron Paul's reputation has taken a hit worth many times the $250k.

Don't want to pay the "Buy It Now" price?
Bully the seller with International Arbitration.

had to agree to international arbitration to settle domain disputes in their contract to obtain the domain name. They used the law to obtain and hold the domain and RP is using it to dispute them. May the best man win.

Yes. Ron Paul and his fanatics need to face reality. (Note: I'm a Ron Paul supporter, not a fanatic.)

He paid $611k to C4L's staff in 2010 alone. $972k went to "other." $158k went to John Tate. The purpose? To lobby in support of individual liberty, minimal government, American sovereignty, free markets, sound money, etc, etc, etc.

He'll own RonPaul.com for as long as his staff remembers to renew it.

Surely the domain name is worth more than one year of John Tate's salary and the hubrisitc staff who forgot to renew it.

What if your name was John Doe, and I made JohnDoe.com and proceeded to sell merchandise with YOUR name and YOUR quotes on it. I'm not paying you any royalties, and oh you want the domain name? Tough, you better cough up $250,000 for it.

Besides this being illegal, it's just a morally douchey thing to do.

If this was me, forget just asking for the domain name. I'd sue the shit out of them. But Ron Paul is a nicer guy than I.

Until very recently, Ron has been a public servant and a well-known/famous public figure. As such, artistic interpretations of his likeness and reproductions of public quotations of his are fair game for merchandise sellers.

Now, if Ron had been a bit more mercenary, he could have easily written a quotable phrases book and licensed his phrases to merchants for a fee.

I could be wrong, but any merchandise that is currently being sold that displays quotations from Ron's books could be sued for copyright infringement.

This has nothing to do with the domain issue, but it does shine a light on other issues than Ron could take on with his pitbull lawyer.

Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer